Appeal No. 95-3096
Application 08/139,072
In view of these differences between Eckardt and Boaz, we do
not consider that one of ordinary skill would have necessarily
simply replaced the Boaz terminal with the Eckardt braid. If the
conductors were on the surface of the glass, and it was desired
to use a resistance heating gun, one of ordinary skill would
utilize the Boaz terminal, rather than the Eckardt system. At
the same time however, in order to avoid the problems associated
with the Boaz terminal, as described by Eckardt at column 1,
lines 60 to 68, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious
to modify the Boaz device by providing the solution to those
problems taught by Eckardt, namely, a section of braided wire in
between the solder connection and the connection to the power
lead. As Eckardt states at column 2, lines 36 to 41:
[B]raid body extending between the soldered arms of the
T and the lug is likewise of a highly flexible nature
capable of withstanding the thermal expansion and
contraction phenomena to which the connection may be
subject as well as mechanical stresses which are slow
acting or sudden.
On page 2 of the reply brief, appellants argue:
[A]n obvious combination of Eckardt et al and Boaz
would involve brazing a female plug connector onto the
end of the braided lead of Eckardt et al, and then
plugging the same onto the male plug connector 18 of
Boaz. This would produce the same stresses that it is
an object of the invention to avoid.
We agree with the first sentence of this statement, but disagree
with the second. Contrary to appellants’ argument, the stresses
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007